Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can “confidence in what we hope for”
and an “assurance about what we do not see”
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[Tcg]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can “confidence in what we hope for”
and an “assurance about what we do not see”
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

Faith is only needed when one doesn't have facts. This faith can be placed in absolutely anything. So, what does this faith prove? Absolutely nothing. This is why one should rely on facts, at least if one seeks to understand reality. It's obvious that many Christians don't seek to know reality and thus the useless mantra presented in Hebrews 1:1.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

Absolutely. It is the biggest con perpetrated by religion that Faith (taking an unverified claim as true) is a virtue. It is not. It is the biggest con trick ever pulled by humans, even bigger than the concept of Royalty. At least that is based on the Alpha breeding pair.

[1213]

...This is why one should rely on facts...

But, one needs lot of faith to believe the facts are true.

[TRANSPONDER]

...This is why one should rely on facts...

But, one needs lot of faith to believe the facts are true.

Your smiley suggests that you know this is a semantic trick. In fact a fallacy - equivocation. In fact, you probably know the difference. You have probably heard the term 'blind faith' before. This is Faith that does not trust science but places trust in faithclaims.

Selectively, and selective in the extreme. The Blind faith - believer trust Bibleclaims totally even when debunked, but dismisses the faithclaims of other religions out of hand.

It dismissed validated science when it conflicts with the faithclaim though only if it doesn't look too silly like a flat earth..no, no, the Bible says the earth is round. Science denial stops short of becoming a laughing -stock.

And yet, they know how much credit science has earned as they quote science freely (if incorrectly) when trying to produce Evidence of their own.

Yes, chum, The faith -claimants love evidence, when it can be fiddled to support their Claims and Beliefs, but they reject it as 'opinion' when it doesn't.

That is the difference between blind faith and faith based on evidence.

[Tcg]

...This is why one should rely on facts...

But, one needs lot of faith to believe the facts are true.

Naw. It takes faith to believe they aren't and that is what so many Christians use to ignore the many issues with the mess that is the Bible. Hmmmm... where could we find an example of that?


Tcg

[1213]

...This is why one should rely on facts...

But, one needs lot of faith to believe the facts are true.

Your smiley suggests that you know this is a semantic trick...

No, I was just laughing at the fact that some don't seem to notice that they also have lot of faith.

...The Blind faith - believer trust Bibleclaims totally even when debunked...

Debunked? You must have been dreaming again.

I don't think people who believe Bibleclaims have blind faith.

[TRANSPONDER]

...This is why one should rely on facts...

But, one needs lot of faith to believe the facts are true.

Your smiley suggests that you know this is a semantic trick...

No, I was just laughing at the fact that some don't seem to notice that they also have lot of faith.

...The Blind faith - believer trust Bibleclaims totally even when debunked...

Debunked? You must have been dreaming again.

I don't think people who believe Bibleclaims have blind faith.

Whatever you were laughing at, your equivocation of Faith gets you nowhere. Faith based on validated evidence is valid, Faith based on faithclaims and old myths of the supernatural in defiance of the evidence is Blind faith.

Debunked, even if you dream that your denial of the evidence and even what the Bible says was anything other than denial.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Angry Ukulele Girl in post #1]

Faith is a belief in something one has no evidence to evaluate. With this being the case, I do not have to have faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real man, who walked the face of the earth in real time, and in real space, because we have evidence this is the case. I do not need to employ faith in order to believe that this same Jesus had a great following and got himself in trouble with the authorities and was crucified, dead, and buried, because we have evidence for this. In fact, I do not need any sort of faith in order to believe that Jesus was resurrected, because we have evidence for this as well.

With this being the case, I can look at, weigh, analyze, and study the evidence we have and come to a conclusion based upon such evidence. What I would need faith in order to believe is, that these events somehow atoned for my sin. In other words, I need faith to believe in the forgiveness of sin. Because you see, I cannot see, weigh, analyze, or feel forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have facts, and evidence in support of the rest.

I encourage you to read the New Testament in order to determine if the authors ever encouraged their audience to accept the resurrection by faith, as opposed to pointing to the evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Angry Ukulele Girl in post #1]

Faith is a belief in something one has no evidence to evaluate. With this being the case, I do not have to have faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real man, who walked the face of the earth in real time, and in real space, because we have evidence this is the case. I do not need to employ faith in order to believe that this same Jesus had a great following and got himself in trouble with the authorities and was crucified, dead, and buried, because we have evidence for this. In fact, I do not need any sort of faith in order to believe that Jesus was resurrected, because we have evidence for this as well.

With this being the case, I can look at, weigh, analyze, and study the evidence we have and come to a conclusion based upon such evidence. What I would need faith in order to believe is, that these events somehow atoned for my sin. In other words, I need faith to believe in the forgiveness of sin. Because you see, I cannot see, weigh, analyze, or feel forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have facts, and evidence in support of the rest.

I encourage you to read the New Testament in order to determine if the authors ever encouraged their audience to accept the resurrection by faith, as opposed to pointing to the evidence.

Problem. I can understand why the 'evidence' for Gospel Jesus is considered good enough. The idea of Jesus as a Jewish religious reformer, even without seeing him as the founder of Christianity, has long been accepted as true. But there is really no good evidence outside the gospels for Gospel Jesus and I have to challenge that picture anyway.

I may be wrong, but I think the Other picture of jesus as failed (zealot) messiah has also a reasonable case.
#[#

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #19]

I really do not know what you intend to say here. What I do know is that we do in fact have evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and for one to deny such a thing is for one not to be in touch with reality. The fact that we have scholars who attempt to give alternative explanations for the facts, and evidence we have, surely demonstrates this to be the case. Of course, you and others may come to different conclusions concerning the facts, and evidence we have, but this again demonstrates there is indeed facts, and evidence. Therefore, one does not have to employ faith in order to believe in the resurrection, but can rather base this belief upon the facts, and evidence we have.